|
Jazerus posted:nah i understand all of this, it has never felt like a full picture of augustus's options to me though. had he wanted to, his estate and offices could have been broken up into a new balance of power in the hands of many different individuals, a sort of reset of the wealth and power accumulation that killed the republic. i guess by the time tiberius was the last remaining heir it was too late to change course to a radical revamp of the republic's constitution with the intention of creating an ultimately stable republic instead of the easily-compromised one that had existed previously even had augustus wanted to - and being rather conservative when it comes to taking risks, that might have simply been off the table as too uncertain regardless. Thing is, by that point the only things in reasonably recent historical memory were either a) distributed power that leads to civil wars as people try to concentrate it in their own hands or b) stable autocracy where the republic technically exists as a framework for state administration but one dude runs everything and people aren't constantly fighting. It's easy to see why Augustus preferred to keep the latter. Plus, a stable republic at that point wasn't really about writing a more perfect constitution to fix the mistakes of the past. Any system of checks and balances was functionally impossible with the territorial extent of the empire combined with the social structure and communications technology of the time. While Rome was small, distribution of power was about different offices, functions within the state apparatus etc., and various bodies could more or less keep an eye on each other in real time. With the huge size it had reached, though, dividing power increasingly meant dividing it by territory, with provincial administrators, generals of far-flung armies etc. necessarily having a lot of discretion to make decisions and deal with problems. This gives them ample time to build power bases and scheme (see: Caesar) which can be effectively stopped when they're part of a definite hierarchy and answer to a single power center. But when they all have a piece of the pie and are meant to counterbalance each other, while the center of the state in Rome itself is also a complex system with mutually balanced powers and responsibilities, it all gives lots of failure points and someone is going to get ahead and up the stakes. As they did, constantly.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
It's common to forget that Tiberius was a really good military commander. His performance as a B-grade emperor tends to occlude this for some reason. The loyalty of the army could not be presumed upon succession the way it is for political leaders today. Tiberius had that loyalty and thus was the best and safest choice for a smooth power transition. Augustus' earlier treatment of Agrippa (disliked by Senate, loved by the military) confirms his thoughts on the importance of military control: it was paramount.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
There was a question in one of these Ask/Tells...it might have even been this one, where somebody asks, basically, how come medieval kings so often divided their kingdoms between their sons, when that just weakened the kingdom and tended to lead to all sorts of problems down the line. The answer somebody gave was a good one, which is that, it's real life, not Crusader Kings or something, and in real life, people tend to like their kids and want to make sure they're taken care of. Tiberius was Augustus's stepson, and the only other adults in the family were Tiberius's nephews Germanicus, who was 29, and Claudius, who was 24. So, it's not like Augustus had a big pool of heirs to pick from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Suetonius would have a good joke about Tiberius and his pool if he posted in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
physeter posted:It's common to forget that Tiberius was a really good military commander. His performance as a B-grade emperor tends to occlude this for some reason. Yeah it’s worth remembering that even Tiberius with all his experience and having been established as co-ruler with Augustus and everything still had to deal with a serious revolt in the German border armies immediately upon his accession that required him to send Germanicus and Drusus in person to put down. In the future of course, usurpation by regional military commanders would become first the basis of dynasties and eventually practically the default form of succession, and there had already been a number of dry runs of this in the dying years of the republic, so the fact that he had already served in several regions of the empire and knew his poo poo as a military leader was a huge point in Tiberius’ favor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
physeter posted:The loyalty of the army could not be presumed upon succession the way it is for political leaders today. Tiberius had that loyalty and thus was the best and safest choice for a smooth power transition. Augustus' earlier treatment of Agrippa (disliked by Senate, loved by the military) confirms his thoughts on the importance of military control: it was paramount.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:That makes sense, maybe it was History of Rome which is really the last bit of Roman History stuff I listened too etc. Duncan made it sound at least to me, like Tiberius was forced out by Augustus for ~reasons~. Instead of TIberius kinda just saying thanks, but no thanks I'm good. cheetah7071 posted:I mean I think Augustus basically said something like "if you're not going to be part of the court I can't have you hanging around Rome" which given Tiberius didn't want to rule is like forcing him out Augustus didn't force Tiberius out, at least not intentionally, and he didn't ask him to leave Rome; that was Tiberius' idea. He was resistant to his coming back, but this could simply be because he was very angry when Tiberius, on the cusp of taking over the government of the entire east, decided that he would like to retire to private life on Rhodes instead. It's hard to say exactly what the real cause was behind the whole debacle, but Tiberius claimed he was simply weary with his work and this could well be the truth. What probably went wrong is that working as Augustus' only real colleague (Agrippa and Drusus were dead, and Gaius and Lucius were still boys) was a gigantic strain on him at a time when he was already very unhappy due to the effective collapse of his marriage to Julia (the story about him tearfully following after his ex-wife Vipsania upon meeting her in the street dates to around this time) and the death of Drusus who was, after all, his brother and dear friend. It may have been that other forces close to Augustus were trying to force Tiberius out of government -- it's been suggested that it was related to the affair between Julia and Iullus Antonius that would be revealed several years later, and it was well known that the young Gaius Caesar and the prominent officer and governor Marcus Lollius disliked Tiberius personally. Augustus certainly did not want to let Tiberius return to Rome once he had left, and only softened his tone on this once Gaius and Lucius had died.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:On the question of Sumerian taverns, how were accounts paid for? Because as fair as I could tell, the invention of coinage was significantly later. What units of exchange were used, especially in urban areas where people didn't own land and couldn't easily raise crops/livestock for barter. I know very little about the Sumerians, but I feel like this shouldn't have been passed over because it's also interesting to me. I did some digging around online and it seems like they used barley and silver as currencies. But buying on credit was common, so I guess you'd keep a tab at your local tavern and then deliver the sacks of barley you owe every now and then. So craftsmen living in cities were paid in barley I suppose? If they were traders they could probably support themselves that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Grevling posted:I know very little about the Sumerians, but I feel like this shouldn't have been passed over because it's also interesting to me. I did some digging around online and it seems like they used barley and silver as currencies. But buying on credit was common, so I guess you'd keep a tab at your local tavern and then deliver the sacks of barley you owe every now and then. So craftsmen living in cities were paid in barley I suppose? If they were traders they could probably support themselves that way. Oh, looking it up, sumerian shekels were used, not as a unit of coin, but a unit of weight. I suppose you'd barter and keep accounts and use fiat clay tokens for small transactions, people weren't especially mobile, and it's not easy for a city-dweller to run away from their debts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina_(unit)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:There was a question in one of these Ask/Tells...it might have even been this one, where somebody asks, basically, how come medieval kings so often divided their kingdoms between their sons, when that just weakened the kingdom and tended to lead to all sorts of problems down the line. The answer somebody gave was a good one, which is that, it's real life, not Crusader Kings or something, and in real life, people tend to like their kids and want to make sure they're taken care of. See also why Commodus became emperor when everyone, including Marcus Aurelius, knew he would be terrible at it but ol' Marcus just couldn't bring himself to have his own son murdered. No other reason, but it's a good one. Also guess who's finally teaching Roman history next semester. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
commodus? rip those kids
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:commodus? The final exam being a fight in the arena after being crippled or maimed seems kind of extreme, but who am I to question the teaching methods of Hercules's reincarnation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Nice! Still in Korea? I'm not sure how to phrase this question, but is there anything different in how Roman history is viewed over there as opposed to in a Romance country, anything different in the way you'd have to teach classes? Or are the differences in backgrounds too abstract to matter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
China. Some of my students are nerds but for the most part they will have never heard of the Romans and will have no background whatsoever. At best they will recognize the name and be aware the Roman Empire was a thing that existed once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
In fairness I doubt the average middle class American high schooler has any clue who the Qing were either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Filthy rich. And nobody here really knows who the Qing were either thanks to CCP propaganda. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
The Qing were the brutal foreign invader tyrants whose cruel and illegitimate rule was finally overthrown in 1911 and also the embodiment of 5000 years of seamlessly uninterrupted Chinese culture whose rule over Xinjiang was unquestionably legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Look at this fuckin counterrevolutionary who didn't get the revised memos  China has NEVER been conquered by a foreign power and the Qing were patriots who did their best valiantly defending China against foreign invasion and humiliation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Look at this fuckin counterrevolutionary who didn't get the revised memos 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Propaganda's a helluva drug, man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
When your students ask, "When did the Roman Empire end," what will you tell them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:When your students ask, "When did the Roman Empire end," what will you tell them? The name "Roman Empire" applied to several different entities through time. My response would be, "Which one?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:When your students ask, "When did the Roman Empire end," what will you tell them? "Go and look it up and whoever can give me the most entertaining answer next week gets a gold star."
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Go and look it up and whoever can give me the most entertaining answer next week gets a gold star." The Roman Empire ended in 1967 after Vatican II.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
It ended last night when I crushed them in civ VI
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Napoleon did it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Ended in 1865 when they drove old Dixie down
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Ended in 1865 when they drove old Dixie down Just read a bit last night where Confederate soldiers are refusing to dig earthworks because that's not a manly thing to do, Lee is trying to convince them that the Romans were really into earthworks and they were cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:10
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Just read a bit last night where Confederate soldiers are refusing to dig earthworks because that's not a manly thing to do, Lee is trying to convince them that the Romans were really into earthworks and they were cool. The gently caress did they do when the rivers flooded if they couldn't dig earthworks? How the gently caress does THE GODDAMN SOUTH not believe in earthworks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The gently caress did they do when the rivers flooded if they couldn't dig earthworks? You're forgetting something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Go and look it up and whoever can give me the most entertaining answer next week gets a gold star." did not end, ave glorious emperor xi
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How the gently caress does THE GODDAMN SOUTH not believe in earthworks? It's unmanly to be sitting on the defensive when they should be out there whipping Yankees using their superior honor and martial spirit. Plus you don't ask a soldiering man of the superior race to do the digging.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
my dad posted:You're forgetting something. I'm not forgetting it so much as I suppose I don't really understand what "manly" means in this context because male slaves existed. Also like, manliness aside it suggests they would just sit and complain until the river washes them away rather than do something about it if there wasn't a slave handy to do it for them. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Somewhere in Turkey there's a man with the genealogical records to prove he's the direct male line descendant of Constantine XI. He knows he will not be the one to restore his family's birthright, but he dreams that maybe his grandson will be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not forgetting it so much as I suppose I don't really understand what "manly" means in this context because male slaves existed. This I assert with no evidence, but “man” implies personhood
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:When your students ask, "When did the Roman Empire end," what will you tell them? "Your comment hurts the feelings of the Roman people."
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:"Your comment hurts the feelings of the Roman people." Totally this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not forgetting it so much as I suppose I don't really understand what "manly" means in this context because male slaves existed. Slaves don't have honor to impugn. If they were manly they would kill themselves rather than be slaves. The men don't want to dig the earthworks because that's 'slave work' and clearly beneath dignified Southern gentlemen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not forgetting it so much as I suppose I don't really understand what "manly" means in this context because male slaves existed. There was a scheme to relocate Southerners to Brazil which suffered because many of them had no idea how to work, or had generations of strongly-held beliefs that physical labor was for colored folks and thus beneath whites. (The Wikipedia article says that they "became known for hard work" but that's only true of the ones who remained for a long period rather than most, who quickly gave up and went back to take their chances with Reconstruction.) Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if there were still Southern men who hold this belief in some form.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 23:29
|
|
